In a surprise attack on Iranian territory, Israel assassinated several high-ranking military officials of the Islamic Republic. It inflicted significant damage on some of the country’s military and nuclear facilities. An operation of this scale and intensity is unprecedented and likely beyond what the Islamic Republic had anticipated, especially at a time when the door to negotiations with the United States remains ajar, and there is still hope for a successful diplomatic outcome.
The first question that arises is: Why did Israel suddenly launch a military offensive?
Several points are worth considering:
1) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently found himself in a precarious position. In addition to mounting international diplomatic pressure and sanctions imposed by Western governments on key members of his cabinet, he is grappling with severe domestic turmoil. Among the most pressing challenges is a vote in the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) aimed at dissolving the current government and holding early elections. Although Netanyahu survived a recent no-confidence vote, the threat has not been entirely neutralized. Against this backdrop, Netanyahu had every incentive to create a major external distraction. An attack on Iran provided an ideal opportunity. When it comes to confronting the Islamic Republic, Israeli political factions—whether left, right, or centrist—often put aside their differences and unite against a common enemy. Thus, a military strike on Iran allowed Netanyahu to shift public focus from internal political strife to external security threats.
2) The ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has become a political liability not only for Netanyahu but also for the international community. The situation has deteriorated to such an extent that even some European nations have expressed outrage at Israel’s actions. For Netanyahu, diverting global attention away from the famine in Gaza required a bold move—hence the strike on Iran. Why Iran? Because the Islamic Republic’s anti-Western posture often isolates it internationally. In times of crisis, most countries not only withhold sympathy from Tehran but, behind closed doors, actively work to further weaken it. Netanyahu’s tactic is not new. When the Gaza war erupted, global public opinion in the West gradually began to favor the Palestinians. Streets in many Western capitals were filled with demonstrators calling for an end to the war. To reverse this narrative, Netanyahu ordered a strike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus. In response, the Islamic Republic launched an operation dubbed “True Promise 1“, which swung the pendulum back in Israel’s favor. Western governments quickly rallied behind Tel Aviv, and public protests in support of Palestinians began to subside.
3) U.S. President Donald Trump, despite his earlier optimistic tone, recently expressed skepticism about the prospects of a successful deal with Iran. He admitted that a clear outcome was increasingly unlikely. Meanwhile, a new report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) accused Iran of violating its nuclear commitments—an allegation that Israel welcomed. Adding to the momentum, the European troika (France, Germany, and the UK) adopted a hardline stance against Tehran, and the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution condemning Iran. These developments effectively sharpened Netanyahu’s axe and gave him the political leverage he needed to act. When Trump shows signs of giving up on diplomacy, the European powers align against Iran, and the IAEA casts doubt on the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program, Netanyahu interprets this confluence of factors as a green light for military action.
4) It appears that Trump has granted Netanyahu a degree of tactical latitude, aiming to pressure Tehran into moderating its position during negotiations and yielding to Israeli and American demands. What reinforces this interpretation are Trump’s remarks following the Israeli strike, in which he lauded the operation, implicitly signaling approval.
What Comes Next?
Iran, it seems, had little choice but to launch a retaliatory strike, a move that appears more aligned with restoring deterrence and recalibrating Israel’s calculations than signaling an intent to enter a full-scale, protracted war. Like the previous “True Promise I” and “True Promise II” operations, this strike appears aimed at reclaiming lost credibility rather than escalating into all-out conflict. What happens next largely depends on the scale and effectiveness of Iran’s counterattack, which, as of now, remains unclear. Israeli officials have yet to offer a definitive assessment of the Islamic Republic’s response. Should the strike significantly impact Israeli perceptions and strategic calculations—or if the U.S. and Israel come to recognize that Iran retains a substantial capacity for follow-up attacks and may not easily back down—the possibility of de-escalation increases. Under such circumstances, a pathway toward ending hostilities may emerge, possibly even leading to a resumption of U.S.–Iran negotiations. If that happens, Washington may find itself compelled to offer limited concessions at the negotiating table to bring the conflict to a close.
Conversely, if the U.S. and Israel determine that Iran has suffered extensive damage and lacks the effective tools to launch a credible deterrent strike, they are likely to double down on pressure. In that scenario, Tehran may be left with no option but to acquiesce to the core demands of the White House, such as completely dismantling its uranium enrichment program and possibly even shuttering its nuclear infrastructure altogether—in a bid to persuade Washington to restrain Israel. Should the Islamic Republic conclude that it cannot endure a prolonged confrontation with Israel and the United States, it may choose to retreat in a way that does not appear, to an impartial observer, as outright capitulation. While Iranian officials often cloak their rhetoric in ideological and revolutionary slogans, history suggests that when confronted with their strategic vulnerabilities, they tend to adopt pragmatic approaches at critical junctures to avert existential threats.
You can read the Persian version of this analysis here:
